Posted on 11/29/2004 6:52:41 AM PST by PatrickHenry
In a poll released last week, two-thirds of Americans said they wanted to see creationism taught to public-school science pupils alongside evolution. Thirty-seven percent said they wanted to see creationism taught instead of evolution.
So why shouldn't majority rule? That's democracy, right?
Wrong. Science isn't a matter of votes -- or beliefs. It's a system of verifiable facts, an approach that must be preserved and fought for if American pupils are going to get the kind of education they need to complete in an increasingly global techno-economy.
Unfortunately, the debate over evolution and creationism is back, with a spiffy new look and a mass of plausible-sounding talking points, traveling under the seemingly secular name of "intelligent design."
This "theory" doesn't spend much time pondering which intelligence did the designing. Instead, it backwards-engineers its way into a complicated rationale, capitalizing on a few biological oddities to "prove" life could not have evolved by natural selection.
On the strength of this redesigned premise -- what Wired Magazine dubbed "creationism in a lab coat" -- school districts across the country are being bombarded by activists seeking to have their version given equal footing with established evolutionary theory in biology textbooks. School boards in Ohio, Georgia and most recently Dover, Pa., have all succumbed.
There's no problem with letting pupils know that debate exists over the origin of man, along with other animal and plant life. But peddling junk science in the name of "furthering the discussion" won't help their search for knowledge. Instead, pupils should be given a framework for understanding the gaps in evidence and credibility between the two camps.
A lot of the confusion springs from use of the word "theory" itself. Used in science, it signifies a maxim that is believed to be true, but has not been directly observed. Since evolution takes place over millions of years, it would be inaccurate to say that man has directly observed it -- but it is reasonable to say that evolution is thoroughly supported by a vast weight of scientific evidence and research.
That's not to say it's irrefutable. Some day, scientists may find enough evidence to mount a credible challenge to evolutionary theory -- in fact, some of Charles Darwin's original suppositions have been successfully challenged.
But that day has not come. As a theory, intelligent design is not ready to steal, or even share, the spotlight, and it's unfair to burden children with pseudoscience to further an agenda that is more political than academic.
Who ruled this was to be a "debate"?
Ah, breathe it in, folks. That's the scent of pure, unadulterated Christian PRIDE. The sort of pride that leads people to honestly believe that other peopel don't believe as they do because those other people are immoral.
For someone who claims to be in a "debate," you certainly have an odd style and a total knack for repeatedly jumping to unfounded conclusions.
We won't hold our breath waiting for consensus, will we?
but nature often 'solves' problems several different ways, and makes irrational choices between alternatives, at least viewed from the standpoint of function.
We should not expect any rational choices from random chance even when "guided" by laws or principles. Although by "irrational" you meant "irrational to us," even that judgment is difficult to make with such a paltry evolutionary contrivance that yields a nearly endless variety of phylogenetic trees.
LOL!
> Previously, you compared me to "leftists." Now, to the hated Howie Dean.
If the shoe fits...
Look: you are doign the work of the Leftists by making Conservatives look bad. And the fact remains, the same tactic you disliked from Dean you worship from God.
> God is good and just. If you want to mock His word, you do so at your own peril.
Just keep telling yourself that. If God exists, He has a special level in Hell for the Liars For Christ. Does God want people to be stupid? Does he want us to not use the brains and reason that he gave us? Does he want us to ignore the natural world? The evidence of the natural world *all* points to evolution. If you choose to believe parable over fact, that's fine.... but if you try to dumb down society to get them to believe the same nonsense... prepare for a cosmic bitch-slap from the Almighty. You make his followers look... well... pretty bad.
#####My daughter takes classes on Music Theory, and somehow I don't think there's any question about the fact that music exists.#####
I think it's simply taken as a given that music exists. I was unaware that there was any controversy over that matter.
Are you telling me that it's simply understood that evolution is correct, and there is no controversy on that matter?
> God is patient but, not forever.
Why? Does he have someplace else to be?
Such finite aspects for a supposedly infinite God... One might almost think that some people are making this stuff up.
I agree in part. Defending the plain reading of the Bible is to be commended, however being jerky in the process can't be defended.
Fortunately we have Christ as an example. People tend to forget the enormity of His persuasive influence. Judeo-Christian principles permeate our reality.
> Who ruled this was to be a "debate"?
You're right. It's not. It's little more than an evolved version of monkeys hurling their feces at each other.
> repeatedly jumping to unfounded conclusions
Hmm. You mean like:
"You would rather believe anything than consider there is a Creator you must and will answer to someday."
THAT is what I call an unfounded conclusion, jumped to out of ignorance and pride.
Suppose that a human were to create such a creature -- would that answer your question? My guess is that, before too long, humans will be capable of such a thing -- if not with organic creatures, then with some other medium (say, an electronic "life").
Still, let us turn your question around: can you propose a test whereby a pool of likely-seeming chemicals spontaneously assembles itself into a living organism? Folks have been trying, and failing, to do this for decades -- at what point should I conclude that their theory is false?
We are talking about different things. Certainly humans have interfered with the development of species for the past 30000 years or so. As far as I know, this is not what ID claims, however, nor is it particularly controversial.
And yet it is factual proof of the efficacy of ID as a theory. To dismiss ID as a "creationist fantasy" (as some on this thread have done) is to dismiss the hard facts showing that it is a viable explanation for some of what we see.
ID typically claims that some pre-human intelligence has interfered with the development of species at some point during the past billion or so years.
I would substitute "non-human," but I'll grant the definition.
What observation would falsify this claim (which we don't know for sure happened)? This is the claim that I am maintaining is not scientific.
By the same token, what observation would falsify the claim that all life on Earth developed as it did due to random mutation? Simple: human-guided selective breeding, and human genetic engineering explain some of what we see (including major characteristics for most of the living things with which we typically surround ourselves).
Not all true claims and ideas are scientific, BTW
True. What I'm getting at is that the "scientific" position being espoused by some on this thread, isn't scientific at all; rather, it's a set of strongly-held beliefs that must be defended against "religious fanatics."
Narby thinks he's being clever. When he first tried this trick, he was unaware that the word "theory" had more than one definition. It was brought to his attention that theory meant one thing in relation to music and quite another in relation to pseudo-science, but he is either a very slow learner or doesn't care about the truth. Take your pick.
Theory, in the case of music, means
2. A set of rules or principles designed for the study or practice of an art or discipline.
Theory, in the case of evolution, means,
4. An assumption or guess.
show me the transitional fossil, not just a toe bone and a lot of imagination
So we need to throw out all histroy books that were written before the last two generations?
Jesus Christ impacted the world more than any other person in history. The life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is the most documented event in history. If you can find a better documented person, I would like to know about them.
Look into it if you have some time.
Ofcourse you realize this is the buggest bunch of az weep ays on the FR.
Ahhhh, orion ... one might rather think that some people are far closer to conversion than they care to admit, and are running hard to avoid the inevitable. ;-)
LOL!!!! I was once a "conservative" very much like you are. I thought all those "holy rollers" were a pox on conservatism, what with their idiotic beliefs and (too often) single-issue zealotry. Now that I'm on the other side of that fence, if anyone makes conservatism look bad, you're it because you have the anti-God message in common with the same "leftists" you hold in such low esteem.
As for the rest of your post, I'm confident God won't "bitch-slap" me for believing his word. And, since you brought up the subject of Hell, ... Eh, nevermind. 'Nuff said on that already.
#####So your whole previous post which ignored variability to concentrate on selection was just strawmanning.#####
No strawmanning at all. I just noted that variability and natural selction are two different things and that proving one (natural selection) doesn't prove the other (that accumulated mutations over time account for the millions of species we see on earth).
#####29+ Evidences for Macroevolution. There's a lot of evidence there, but will someone who doesn't want to see it be able to see it?#####
I'm willing to look at evidence. I've done so many times on this issue. I'm just asking some polite questions and sometimes being met with polite answers, and other times by name calling and stonewalling.
#####Let's make some distinctions. There's ignorance. Then there's willful ignorance. Then there's militant ignorance.#####
I'll take your word for that.
#####Theories are good. Science uses theories. Myths are useless.#####
Of course science uses theories, and they should. We should not treat them as dogma and label anyone who questions them an ignoramus. I might just as well be on a political debate board, subjecting myself to being called a "homophobic bigot" because I don't accept liberal posturing on gay marriage.
Myths, by the way, aren't necessarily useless, though they are to science.
I guess I needed reminding. ;O)
I wouldn't hold my breath either since evolution doesn't work that way.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.